3 ms·
It was part of my point, but not the main part. My main point is that Holmes and Madoff are potentially different - that I think Madoff is probably a sociopath
by scott_s 10y ago
It was part of my point, but not the main part. My main point is that Holmes and Madoff are potentially different - that I think Madoff is probably a sociopath is only part of that. That is hard to objectively establish. But what is objectively established is that Madoff knew what he was doing. I am unsure if Holmes is knowingly scamming people. My main concern with the comment I replied to is that, based on my reading, they implied Madoff may have unknowingly defrauded people, which is not the case. He knew what he was doing. Unfortunately, is-or-is-not-a-sociopath became the most commented on part.
Thanks for applying the principle of charity! (In case the tone of my text is unclear, that is a genuine sentiment.)
- kbenson 10y agoSure, I got that. I misspoke a bit when I saw "that was his point". You used the sociopath statement not as the main point, but to drive that point. Not knowing (even possibly), is much different than definitely knowing and not caring. It's a double edged sword, in that the label quickly illustrates the difference you are pointing out, but then you have to deal with people focusing on the word and not the point. That makes it appropriate to use IMO, though sometimes self-defeating. :/
- scott_s 10y agoOh, I wasn't correcting you! Just re-iterating in my own words what my intentions were. And, agreed.